It’s called hating the sin and loving the sinner

To some folks – even a few of my readers, from whom I would expect better – it all seems very mysterious – like the height of hypocrisy: Senator Rick Santorum speaks out (a little too forcefully for my taste, but he’s not my senator) about the homosexual lifestyle and agenda, and so – somehow – that makes him a hypocrite for defending his gay spokesman, whom some of the left have “outed.”

“I think it squares very clearly with my public positions on every other issue, which is that I treat people fairly, I treat people equally, I treat people with dignity and respect, and irrespective of what they may or may not do outside of work,” said Mr. Santorum, R-Penn Hills.

In a story last week, the online gay and lesbian publication, PageOneQ, quoted Mr. Traynham as saying he is an openly gay man who supports the senator. The story was picked up by the Knight-Ridder News Service and ran in newspapers across the country.

Michael Geer, the president of the Pennsylvania Family Institute, which has vocally supported Mr. Santorum for opposing gay marriage, said there’s a difference between employing someone who is gay and endorsing the homosexual lifestyle in public policy. He credited the senator for knowing the difference.

Ummm. Yeah. For those who don’t get it, anything less than a willingness to actually “celebrate and endorse” a homosexual lifestyle is “homophobia” and “hate.”

This is nonsense. It is quite possible to disagree with the gay agenda and still treat gays with respect, friendship and love.

If you are a person who has made it a habit to stomp around and declare that “if you don’t agree with me, you’re my enemy” then you won’t understand it. My brother and I did not agree on everything about his lifestyle. But we loved each other dearly, cared about each other, respected each other and – where we could – supported each other. I could not support his unserious and reckless decisions, the ones which – to my everlasting grief – eventually cost him his life. He could not support everything I was about. That did not mean all bets were off.

The Catholic Church teaches that homosexual people are to be treated with dignity and respect – and it seems that Rick Santorum does that – certainly he does not exploit his gay staff member – nor does he consider him “unworthy” of respect. That he does not jump through politically correct hoops or subdue his opinions in order to make others “feel good about themselves” is hardly the mark of a hypocrite. Quite the opposite, in fact. But maybe in an era of unbounded euphemisms, hypocrisy means something different than it used to.

Seems kind of ironic. These folks who hate Santorum and are calling him a “hypocrite” because he actually employs someone with whom, on some matters, he might disagree…I wonder if they would ever employ a Christian with whom they disagree, and stand up and defend that employee, in the face of this sort of heat. These same folks who bow to the altar of “inclusion” – I wonder how inclusive they would be. As inclusive as Santorum?

It’s called hating the sin and loving the sinner. It’s really NOT that complicated. It means, “just because I admire and respect you doesn’t mean I have to give up my own values to do so…and you are not diminished by my choice.”

Tolerant…maybe we should call them “classically liberal”… people understand that.

UPDATE: Take a look at the “tolerant progressives” last night. Who is it that makes a big deal, all the time, about gays? WHO?

About Elizabeth Scalia
  • Pam

    Sounds like Bush and his pick, no?

    You have such an elequent and direct way of putting such things.

    Thanks, I’m sure I’ll use some of this in my History class.

  • Pam

    Sounds like Bush and his pick, no?

    You have such an elequent and direct way of putting such things.

    Thanks, I’m sure I’ll use some of this in my History class.

  • Pingback: CaNN :: We started it.

  • Pingback: CaNN :: We started it.

  • karen

    When you hold the pirsm up to the light, it shines in such a way as to give off the brightest of all colours!! Thank you.

  • karen

    When you hold the pirsm up to the light, it shines in such a way as to give off the brightest of all colours!! Thank you.

  • Mir

    I wonder how many liberals would hire and overt evangelical or orthodox Christian who is pro-life and anti-gay-marriage. That might speak about who is REALLY tolerant.

    People forget today that tolerance meant you put up with what you OBJECTED TO morally or otherwise for the purpose of civility and community peace. It wasn’t that you AFFIRMED something. If you think it’s OKAY, then what’s to tolerate? You only tolerate what you find unpleasant or objectionable for a higher purpose (like root canals!)

    I can feel great warmth and love for people who are gay and even pro-choice because they are PEOPLE, and everyone should be judged independently for who they are, not just one component. But an agenda I can condemn or praise, I can work against or rally for. I am against the gay agenda. I am very much in like with individual gays. :) In my neck of the US woods (South Florida), you see the gay community in all its variety, from the most self-indulgent and sordid and destructive to the most vibrant and lively and creative. You can’t judge one person by their community. And you can’t hate a person cause they’re different. But I can hate the juggernaut that tries to bulldoze a new morality onto my landscape. That I have to fight and vote against.

    Mir

  • Mir

    I wonder how many liberals would hire and overt evangelical or orthodox Christian who is pro-life and anti-gay-marriage. That might speak about who is REALLY tolerant.

    People forget today that tolerance meant you put up with what you OBJECTED TO morally or otherwise for the purpose of civility and community peace. It wasn’t that you AFFIRMED something. If you think it’s OKAY, then what’s to tolerate? You only tolerate what you find unpleasant or objectionable for a higher purpose (like root canals!)

    I can feel great warmth and love for people who are gay and even pro-choice because they are PEOPLE, and everyone should be judged independently for who they are, not just one component. But an agenda I can condemn or praise, I can work against or rally for. I am against the gay agenda. I am very much in like with individual gays. :) In my neck of the US woods (South Florida), you see the gay community in all its variety, from the most self-indulgent and sordid and destructive to the most vibrant and lively and creative. You can’t judge one person by their community. And you can’t hate a person cause they’re different. But I can hate the juggernaut that tries to bulldoze a new morality onto my landscape. That I have to fight and vote against.

    Mir

  • http://worthythinking.blogspot.com Truthseeker

    Anchoress and Mir, thank you for such a personal and eloquent explanation of “tolerance”.
    I find in dictionaries of a newer publishing date to vary a little with older definitions from past dictionaries. My dictionary, The Random House Dictionary of the English Language, College Edition, copyright 1969, 1968, gives the definition in part as, “tolerance, 1. a fair and objective attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, or the like, differ from one’s own: freedon from bigotry. 2. a fair and objective attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one’s own. 3. any liberal, undogmatic viewpoint.”
    Compare that to dictionary.com entry, The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
    Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
    Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. “tolerance, 1. The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others.”
    I think that even our newer dictionaries are beginning to surrender to the more PC concept of “tolerance”. We see no reference, at best only the assumption, to the concept of one’s disagreement of said belief or practice in the definition from dictionary.com, compared to the Random House dictionary I use.
    Words and their meanings are a changin’, we had better be sure of the definition others understand for a word that we, or they, are using. A long time ago it was not unusual for someone to describe a happy, carefree person as a “gay” person based on the popular definition of the word then. It is quite different today when using the word “gay” to so describe a person without giving them a different label. It is also hard to sing the Christmas song “Deck the Halls” without wondering what kind of apparel is “gay” per today’s use of the word.
    Word usage today is more like making up the rules of a game as one plays the game, as Calvin and Hobbs did in the comic strip. Can be quite confusing.

  • http://worthythinking.blogspot.com Truthseeker

    Anchoress and Mir, thank you for such a personal and eloquent explanation of “tolerance”.
    I find in dictionaries of a newer publishing date to vary a little with older definitions from past dictionaries. My dictionary, The Random House Dictionary of the English Language, College Edition, copyright 1969, 1968, gives the definition in part as, “tolerance, 1. a fair and objective attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, or the like, differ from one’s own: freedon from bigotry. 2. a fair and objective attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one’s own. 3. any liberal, undogmatic viewpoint.”
    Compare that to dictionary.com entry, The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
    Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
    Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. “tolerance, 1. The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others.”
    I think that even our newer dictionaries are beginning to surrender to the more PC concept of “tolerance”. We see no reference, at best only the assumption, to the concept of one’s disagreement of said belief or practice in the definition from dictionary.com, compared to the Random House dictionary I use.
    Words and their meanings are a changin’, we had better be sure of the definition others understand for a word that we, or they, are using. A long time ago it was not unusual for someone to describe a happy, carefree person as a “gay” person based on the popular definition of the word then. It is quite different today when using the word “gay” to so describe a person without giving them a different label. It is also hard to sing the Christmas song “Deck the Halls” without wondering what kind of apparel is “gay” per today’s use of the word.
    Word usage today is more like making up the rules of a game as one plays the game, as Calvin and Hobbs did in the comic strip. Can be quite confusing.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X